H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 31.07.2003 Annex.7 passed by the respondent Union of India declining to make reference on the ground that the workman has not worked for 240 days in a year and the workman was given an opportunity to appear before duly constituted Board of Officers, but he did not appear and therefore, the industrial dispute is not maintainable.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that the controversy is no more res integra in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Kanhiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. wherein in para 22 of the Report, this Court observed as under: In the present case the petitioner is seeking his right to seek industrial adjudication of dispute that exist between himself and his employer. He has immediately approached the Joint Labour Commissioner soon after termination of service in June, 1997, complaining about illegal termination of his services without any notice. Relationship of employer and employee is not in dispute. The employer claimed it to be a valid termination by way of punishment as a result of fair and proper enquiry. No payment or offer to payment of outstanding at that time is even alleged by the employer. Stending of amount by the employer, which according to him in offence due to the employee at the time of his termination and even its acceptance now does it affect the validity or otherwise of termination. It was not even alleged that payment was made to and received by the petitioner by way of any settlement to resolve, the dispute. In these circumstances, payment or receipt of the amount by the petitioner workman in Jan. 2002, shortly before filing of the writ petition challenging the order of refusing to make a reference has hardly any relevance to controversy raised before this Court in the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner in our opinion can neither be held guilty of laches nor can be held to have suppressed material facts relevant for the lis.
(3.) ON these premises, it has been held that refusal to make reference with reference to observation that no case existed for judicial determination is improper.;